A recent article in the New York Times reported that the military has
become frustrated with President Barack Obama because he hasn’t quickly decided
to risk more of their lives in an Afghan war that is likely to be unwinnable.
In a post-World War II world that has featured a non-traditional militarized
foreign policy of profligate interventions into the affairs of other nations,
the U.S. military and its opinion have acquired great prestige and are accorded
hushed reverence in American society. The military and flag are worshiped
as never before. But is this really patriotism?

The nation’s founders would roll over in their graves at what patriotism has
become. After their bad experience with British colonial military abuses and
seeing European citizens paying with blood and treasure for the frequent wars
of their monarchs, the founders feared standing armies for undermining liberty.
The U.S. Constitution rejected European militarism in favor of tight congressional
controls over the employment, organization, and funding of the U.S. armed forces.
Since World War II, those controls – such as congressional declarations of
war – have been severely eroded.

And the American public, still feeling guilty over the admittedly terrible
treatment of returning draftees from the Vietnam War, has retained its awe
of the now voluntary military as an institution, even as it has soured on the
Iraq and Afghan Wars. Even while fighting two unpopular wars, the public has
supported huge defense budgets all out of proportion to what is needed to defend
the country. Is this healthy for a republic?

The politically incorrect answer to this question is a resounding "no!"
Being genuinely patriotic means supporting the country’s society and culture.
Excessive reverence for the U.S. government, military, and flag is merely nationalism
and is similar to episodes in Russia, Germany, and Japan in the last century.
And slathering the military with too many resources tempts politicos, such
as George W. Bush and Madeleine Albright, to dream up unneeded military adventures
overseas, which many times end in disaster.

True American patriotism, following in the tradition of the founding, rejects
militarism without rejecting an appropriate role for the military. According
to the Constitution, the active military should "provide for the common
defense" and nothing more. This limited role should rule out the military
being used to invade other nations for ostensibly lofty purposes.

To be even more politically incorrect, on 9/11, the U.S. military failed in
this primary mission. No one was fired over this tragic fiasco. Since then,
the military has been used to make things worse and actually undermine U.S.
security. Armchair quasi-patriots – unfortunately, most of the country – don’t
like to acknowledge what triggers al-Qaeda’s heinous attacks in the first place:
U.S. interventions in Islamic countries. In both the counterproductive Afghan
and Iraq invasions and occupations, the military made huge mistakes before
having to relearn counterinsurgency warfare tactics purposefully forgotten
in the wake of its debacle in Vietnam. Does repeated incompetence deserve veneration?

One might then say so much for the military organization and its leaders,
but shouldn’t we still have reverence for the frontline soldier who risks his
or her life for our freedom? Unfortunately, military personnel – like the general
public from which they come – are under the same aforementioned delusion about
what "patriotism" should be. One could argue that war is sometimes
necessary for defense – although the current U.S. offensive-defensive strategy
is unneeded, unconstitutional, and counterproductive – but war rarely leads
to increased freedom, as the founders knew. The civil liberties erosion under
the "war on terror" is illustrative. Also, military personnel should
know, or take the time to learn if they don’t, that the U.S. has been the most
aggressive country on the planet during the Cold War and since in terms of
the number of foreign military interventions.

Therefore, a new patriotism is needed. As a start, let’s stop worshiping
the military and flag and bring back the founders’ old-fashioned respect for
liberty and the Constitution.

True American patriotism, following in the tradition of the founding, rejects militarism without rejecting an appropriate role for the military. According to the Constitution, the active military should "provide for the common defense" and nothing more. This limited role should rule out the military being used to invade other nations for ostensibly lofty purposes.
To be even more politically incorrect, on 9/11, the U.S. military failed in this primary mission. No one was fired over this tragic fiasco. Since then, the military has been used to make things worse and actually undermine U.S. security.

You are very correct when you say that the military failed in its primary mission on 9/11. This is something that is rarely if ever mentioned. Think about it. The most powerful and expensive military force in the world was incapable, when it counted most, to stop what occured not in one location alone but in no less than three. All those people, materiale, training, and at an incalcuable cost, on top of multiple alphabet soup agencies with likewise obscene budgets, couldn't stop what presumeable happened by about a dozen, as Limbaugh would say… "kooks". By that measure people should call the whole thing a collosal failure and shut it down instead of shoveling MORE stolen loot into its gaping maw.

You are very correct when you say that the military failed in its primary mission on 9/11. This is something that is rarely if ever mentioned. Think about it. The most powerful and expensive military force in the world was incapable, when it counted most, to stop what occured not in one location alone but in no less than three. All those people, materiale, training, and at an incalcuable cost, on top of multiple alphabet soup agencies with likewise obscene budgets, couldn't stop what presumeable happened by about a dozen, as Limbaugh would say… "kooks". By that measure people should call the whole thing a collosal failure instead of shoveling MORE stolen loot into its gaping maw.

America has been hijacked by a ruthless and an immensely wealthy and powerful oligarchy. The American Ruling Establishment; a political, military, corporate, and banking cabal of liars, thieves and murderers; doesn't give one damn about the Constitution, the ideals of the American Revolution (life, liberty, state’s rights and property rights) or the future of the American people. The American Ruling Establishment is systematically destroying America; economically, morally and spiritually. They have run up a national debt that totals in the trillions of dollars. They are destroying the value of our hard-earned money and savings. They have destroyed our manufacturing jobs, our liberties, our rights to property, our rights to privacy, and our Constitutional rights to a fair trial in the civil courts. Continued:

They have made aggressive and perpetual wars of imperialism all over the globe. They have murdered and maimed thousands of American soldiers and millions of innocent foreign civilians. They have created a virtual police state on federal, state and local levels. They have absolute control over the two major political and every branch of the Federal Government. America is no longer "the land of the free and the home of the brave." We now find ourselves living under a virtual dictatorship. But let no one say we were not warned. President Eisenhower tried to warn us when he spoke of the danger of the "military-industrial complex." Maj. General Smedley Butler, when he wrote "War is a Racket," tried to warn us. George Orwell tried to warn us when he wrote "1984." Continued:

Henry_Clemens

And we were also warned here: “Democracy. A democracy we take as much for granted as the water we drink. But democracy is a living thing. Its skeleton, an ideal. Its bloodstream, dissent. Its tissue comprised of all the people who inhabited it. All the people. But what happens if the life of democracy is paralyzed by fear, or greed, or simple laziness? And the country is yielded up or coerced or persuaded into accepting a dictatorship? A leader whose word alone is all of law. Continued:

Henry_Clemens

And we were also warned here: “Democracy. A democracy we take as much for granted as the water we drink. But democracy is a living thing. Its skeleton, an ideal. Its bloodstream, dissent. Its tissue comprised of all the people who inhabited it. All the people. But what happens if the life of democracy is paralyzed by fear, or greed, or simple laziness? And the country is yielded up or coerced or persuaded into accepting a dictatorship? A leader whose word alone is all of law. Continued:

The skeleton of democracy is destroyed. Its blood stream, dissent, is bound in the barbed wire of concentration camps. And the leader’s special police, the internal security forces, terrorize the bulk of the people into acceptance. And the flag of the Internal Security Forces, symbol of fear and darkness, will fly over our land. All across the land, are those who fight this symbol of darkness. They are the underground. They call themselves, the Society of Man. The sound of that siren reminds them the leader continues to destroy democracy and the society of man. Yet there are not many in the underground. And often, each must fight in their own way.” – Narrator’s Prologue to Shadow on the Land. American presidents, who take their orders from America's Ruling Establishment, have become virtual dictators. The question is this: what are we, the American people, going to do about it.

MAJ Dan Rayca, Student, Command and General Staff College, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth Kansas.
Mr. Eland, although I agree with you about the limited role of the military in society and our constitutional obligations, I fail to see connection between that view and your thesis that the American public's support for her sons and daughters is not patriotic. As a veteran of both the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns I can tell you first hand that our military is, number one, not in charge of U.S. policy and number two, making sacrifices that would revival that of any war in the U.S. history when comparing percentages of those lost and those who serve as well as time spent away from their families. So if some fawning American citizen wants thank a Solider in the airport or treat a Soldier’s family to a ball game is that too much adulation?
The views expressed in this comment are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Ira7Epstein

During your deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan I am sure both you and your family suffered many hardships. Many American soldiers were maimed for life or killed during the time they fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. These sacrifices, however, are inextrictably linked to the wars in which they were made. The Iraq war is unjust because it was not in self defense. It is immoral because it was based upon lies, and it was unnecessary because Iraq never posed a threat to the lives or liberties of the American people. The war in Afghanistan is also an unneeded war. The pretext for that war, that Afghanistan under the Taliban provided a safe haven for Al Qaida to plan the 911 attacks is false. The 911 attacks were planned in Germany, Spain, and Florida. The majority of the persons who participated in that attack came from Saudi Arabia. Terrorists can plan their attacks just fine without any safe havens. The lack of a safe haven did not prevent Timothy McViegh from planning his terrorist attack in Oklahoma City. (Continued)

MAJ Dan Rayca

MAJ Dan Rayca, Student, Command and General Staff College, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth Kansas.
Let’s put it in perspective, who deserves more adulation? A Soldier returning from Afghanistan/Iraq or some celebrity in the airport? Soldiers swear to defend the constitution, we as a public choose our civilian leaders to make policy. The military serves you.
The views expressed in this comment are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

MAJ Dan Rayca

MAJ Dan Rayca, Student, Command and General Staff College, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth Kansas.
To comment on the “military” anxiously waiting for the President’s decision on troop levels in Afghanistan, the military currently has the mission to conduct Counter Insurgency/Nation building as dictated by the current administration. Therefore GEN McCrystal made the determination that he needed more Soldiers to conduct that mission. If the mission is changed/redefined to a Counter Terrorism that mission would require far less troops and the General will most likely be sending a lot of troops home instead. Troop strength is dictated by what the mission is and the executive branch defines that for the military. So, if the military seems anxious it is because we need guidance and resources to accomplish our mission.
The views expressed in this comment are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

MAJ Dan Rayca

MAJ Dan Rayca, Student, Command and General Staff College, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth Kansas.
As far as people not being held accountable for failed strategies in the past, I agree that the administration needs to hold the military leaders accountable as Lincoln did during the Civil War. However the American people did hold the public servants accountable and expressed their frustration by voting against the Republicans in November 2008. Our country is great and we have smart, tough, dedicated people serving in the military, if you don’t like how things are going than blame the Politician’s not the Soldiers, and please thank them for their sacrifices. It’s not that much to ask.
The views expressed in this comment are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

R. Sanger

The war-mongers who control U.S. foregin policy are using the worship of military service as a convenient shield to use against any critics of their policy of overseas interventionism, and this is a problem. A familiar refrain during the Iraq war used by media commentators, politicians, and ordinary citizens was "Support our troops" – suggesting that anyone who wasn't overly enthusiastic about George Bush's Iraq War was somehow doing a disservice to American servicepeople. This was supposed to make any critics of the war "shut up" as O'Reilly would put it and march lock-step politically with those in favor of war. The worship of military service has become almost a cult – something far beyond an expression of patriotism, more like a legitimization of militarism as a core U.S. value. It's not about military service – an honorable endeavour when in defense of the country – it's about unquestioning obedience to the foreign policy goals of the State. When we live in a State that is blind to the interests and demands of it's citizens, adulation of the military is in no way patriotic.

Why are we embarrassed of dead soldiers while celebrating the death of Michael Jackson?

Why do dead soldiers go to their graves in the dark while we throw a party for Jackson? Why did the funeral for those Italian soldiers more closely resemble Jackson's death than any dead American soldier? I am talking about real behavior not platitudes. That is how Americans behave.

And sure there are good soldiers but there are also bad soldiers, just like everything else, except just about everything else has a smaller change of PTSD and its side effects, like the stories told by former soldiers currently serving life in prison for murder (not state sponsored murder, of course).

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Who says we need standing armies anyway? No army on Earth could take the US with our without the military. Look what has happened to our Super Military, brought down to earth by politics and guys with ak-572, tennis shoes, and a fancy mine. No military would stand a chance against a US insurgency unless it went nuclear and carpet bombed which is why I think it ridiculous that my fellow Americans are so damn afraid of everything.

MAJ Dan Rayca

MAJ Dan Rayca, Student, Command and General Staff College, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth Kansas.
Agree that pundits use the military and that is wrong. I don't think that the public "worships" military service though, as I said before people are much more enamored with public figures like athletes and movie stars which is a travesty. I have actually had people tell me, "better you than me" which was very disheartening since I took it as an indication of the level of pride in service in America. However, supporting the troops can be separated from political maneuvering. Don’t lump the Soldiers into the war “monger” category, they have families that they love and don't want to leave, most of them join because of a sense of service and wanting to make a difference.
The views expressed in this comment are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

MAJ Dan Rayca

MAJ Dan Rayca, Student, Command and General Staff College, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth Kansas.
Congress is authorized by the constitution to provide for an Army. They hold our purse strings, write your congressional representative if you don’t want a standing Army. The question is do you want to accept that risk, with countries like North Korea, China, Russia, Iran? If we go to an isolationist approach, OK, but if we are going to be a member of the global community, who will protect our allies? Some members of the world community are quick to criticize the U.S. for having a big military but are equally quick to call on us for help when their national interests are on the line. Examples of help provided, Bosnia, Kuwait, earthquake/typhoon relief.
The views expressed in this comment are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

MAJ Dan Rayca

Our military is the most powerful in the world, this is true. We also are required to exercise more restraint than our enemy who does not avoid collateral damage, targeting of civilians and tactics like beheadings. Who are the real war mongers? If you are against the wars than speak out without fear it is your right but once again don’t say the U.S military lost anything, we have preserved the American way of life, Iraq is free and democratic and Afghanistan needs direction at the strategic level before success or failure can be determined .
The views expressed in this comment are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

MAJ Dan Rayca

MAJ Dan Rayca, Student, Command and General Staff College, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth Kansas.
I don't know why people "celebrate" the deaths of famous people or why they feel more of a connection to them as opposed to a fallen Soldier and his family. The military honors its fallen Soldiers and a lot of “patriotic” people do the same. Some people actually stage protests at military funerals in front of grieving family members, is that patriotism? All we can do is ease their pain and strive to ensure they did not die in vain and provide support/comfort to the families left behind. It is said that the Army is a reflection of society, so sure you are going to have a small percentage of Soldiers that do not follow society’s values. I’m not familiar with Soldiers committing murder under a PTSD defense.
The views expressed in this comment are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

The Isolationist false dichotomy with a heavy dose of Exceptionalism, you are really telling me things I haven't heard before, making fresh arguments that time has not yet shown to be baloney. Your worn out interventionist platitudes bore me.

The Isolationist false dichotomy with a heavy dose of Exceptionalism. You are really speaking to me, telling me things I haven't heard before, making fresh arguments that time has not yet shown to be baloney.

I’m not familiar with Soldiers committing murder under a PTSD defense.

Color me surprised, Fort Carson ring a bell? You can google "Forst Carson PTSD" if you'd like but for some strange reason I don't think you're at all interested.

You don't appear to be antiwar at all, do you think that you'll be able to convince readers at antiwar.com to be more pro-war with interventionist "War is Peace" platitudes? You've got your work cut out for you here, people pay attention to foreign policy around these parts.

I’m not familiar with Soldiers committing murder under a PTSD defense.

Color me surprised, Fort Carson ring a bell? You can google "Forst Carson PTSD" if you'd like but for some strange reason I don't think you at all interested.

You don't appear to be antiwar at all, do you think that you'll be able to convince readers at antiwar.com to be more pro-war with interventionist "War is Peace" platitudes? You've got your work cut out for you here, people pay attention to foreign policy around these parts.

As a former military serviceman I understand where you're coming from but both you and everyone else, as I also did, who "volunteered" did so without a gun to your head whereas those of us pickpocketed by Uncle Sam didn't necessarily ask to be robbed to pay for what we view as immoral. I haven't seen the military offering to pay my rent or feed my kids out of thanks for stealing from me so that you could have adventures overseas in places you have no business being in. This is where a standing army is simply a simmering excuse for trigger happy officers to get their rocks off while helping potential future employers, once they "retire, in the ridiculously named "defense" industry to unload old inventory for new. All again, mind you, on my dime! Time to get a real job outside of the box, something like farming, that has nothing to do with the act of killing someone on the other side of the planet. Just because the evil lunatics in the white house want to build a legacy on the bones of innocents completely unconnected to them or their vomiting rhetoric doesn't grant moral cover to those engaged in nor support of such acts. Patriotism as it is undrestood by the average grunt for the most part is a lie. Just say no and go home and hug the wife and kids and get a real life.

Scott Conley

MAJ Scott Conley, Student, Command and General Staff College, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth Kansas.
Is Adulation of the Military Really Patriotic?, by Ivan Eland
First of all, let me just say that MAJ Rayca makes some excellent points. A few other things to consider:
You make the common mistake of classifying “the military” as a single entity. There are a few, very senior military officials who influence policy, but the vast majority execute the policy of civilian officials, elected by the citizens of the United States. These are the folks you say we are giving too much credit.
You claim the nation’s founders would “roll over in their graves at what patriotism has become.” The founders had more reverence for the American military than anyone today can fathom. They had staked their fortunes and their lives on the Declaration of Independence, and the only thing separating them from the English gallows was the often unpaid, and always undersupplied US military. Their fear was not of a standing army, but of a single, or small group of civilians in control of a standing army. Though the founders might not necessarily agree with current US foreign policy, they would not “roll over in their graves.” They would be proud, and frankly amazed, that such a diverse group of peoples had actually banded together and formed such a strong national identity that the actions of the federal government were often more important and unifying (or divisive) than those of their local or state assemblies. This idea was inconceivable in 1776, and even in 1783.
You argue that congressional control of the military has degraded. How so? I did not ask to go to Afghanistan, or Iraq. I went because civilian authorities, elected by the people, told me it was necessary. Military leaders do not “decide” to deploy to far-away lands, or deploy more troops into theater. They “recommend” troop levels based on the mission and end state assigned to them by civilian authorities. Then they try to do the nation’s will, based on what they get. Congress approves every aspect of our budget, and that money pays for the decisions of civilians, not the military.
Your assertion that, ”slathering the military with too many resources tempts politicos, such as George W. Bush and Madeleine Albright, to dream up unneeded military adventures overseas, which many times end in disaster.”, is particularly confusing. In 18 years of service, I have never felt “slathered” in resources, and when those resources have come, it has generally been after the fact. Either way, it has nothing to do with your original thesis that adulation of the military is not patriotic.
Respect for the military is not synonymous with pro militarism. Honoring the sacrifices military members make voluntarily for their country does not mean you advocate the decisions elected civilian officials make as to how to deploy them.
The most ridiculous part of your argument is that the US military failed on 9/11. The 9/11 attacks were a criminal action initiated inside the United States. As you are no doubt aware, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 limits the federal government from using the military in the role of law enforcement. The 9/11 operatives entered the US with valid visas, and somehow got through airport security. Which part of that is a military failure?
Finally, and I realize this is sort of a cheap shot, but I read your bio. Lots of education, lots of DC time, and plenty of academia, but as far as I can tell, not a single day of military service.
To be honest, I have more respect for the people who have joined the military after 9/11, than those, (like me) who joined before. These young men and women signed up knowing they would go to war, probably more than once. How can you say we respect them too much? The next time you see a soldier, thank him or her. It’s the least you can do.
The views expressed in this comment are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

MAJ Dan Rayca

MAJ Dan Rayca, Student, Command and General Staff College, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth Kansas.
Google “Army a reflection of society” to see commentary. Don’t make blind assumptions, I did look up the “PTSD” articles as you suggested, I am now familiar. Also your condescending tone is not helpful to the original discussion. I never claimed I was “antiwar” and I think I’ve been very upfront with my views and respectful of the views expressed by others. Does it upset you that people with different views express ideas on this site? Isn’t intelligent debate important? Or are your platitudes more important ?
The views expressed in this comment are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

MAJ Dan Rayca

MAJ Dan Rayca, Student, Command and General Staff College, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth Kansas.
Don't think that was the insightful response I expected. Sorry to bore you with an opposing view point.
The views expressed in this comment are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

To Maj. Scott Conley and Maj. Dan Rayca: Sirs, as an American citizen, I want you to know that I have the greatest respect for those who are serving in all of the branches of the armed services. My quarrel is with your civilian masters. However, let us be honest; the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan are offensive wars; they are not defensive wars. The governments of Iraq and Afghanistan did not attack the United States. Al-Qaeda attacked the United States. That makes the wars against those two countries immoral, unjustified, aggressive and murderous. Continued:

American military personnel are not fighting in those two countries to establish freedom and democracy. That is a lie. American personnel are fighting in those two countries to secure total control of their oil and mineral resources for the American Ruling Establishment (see my post above). Every person who serves in the armed forces swears an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies of our republic be they foreign or DOMESTIC. Members of the armed forces do not swear an oath to carry out immoral, unjust, illegal orders and participate in offensive wars of naked aggression. Any American service personnel who participate in wars of naked aggression are traitors to the Constitution and the American people. Any Christian military personnel who participate in unjust wars of naked aggression are committing murder and are traitors to the son of God who is Christ Jesus their Lord. Continued:

No American service personnel should ever participate in unjust wars of aggression that bring shame and disgrace upon themselves and their fellow Americans. Military officers of Nazi Germany were tried and convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg because Germany waged immoral, unjustified and aggressive war. The excuse that “they were just following orders” didn’t let them off the hook. And it won’t get you off the hook either. Continued:

If you two officers really love America, you both will uphold the Constitution and the ideals of the American Revolution. You both will defend the lives, the liberties, and the property of your fellow American citizens but you will never disgrace yourselves or your countrymen by fighting wars of naked aggression for the Corporate Ruling Establishment that now thoroughly, and unconstitutionally, controls the Federal Government. When you put on the uniform of America’s military services you are duty bound to uphold the highest standards of morality and human decency. You will not kill unjustly. You will not commit murder. You will refuse to participate in immoral, unjust wars of naked aggression. Then and only will you be able to hold your heads up proudly with honor and dignity and be able to say that you have done your duty; to the Constitution, to your country, to humanity and to God. If you do your duty, you will forever earn the respect and admiration of the American people. And God himself will say; “well done, my good and faithful servants.”

Who said anything about blogging? The Empire is doing a fine job destroying itself it doesn't need my help.

MAJ Dan Rayca

Mr. Clemens, first I appreciate your thoughts and respect your point of view. I don’t disagree with all of your conclusions on why we are fighting in the mid-east. However, I have never witnessed nor participated in murderous acts. To the contrary I have seen my fellow Soldiers bring aid and comfort to thousands of citizens and witnessed the pride in the Iraqi people as they left voting booths in Iraq. Mistakes were made and a few Soldiers committed crimes and were held accountable for their actions. I came on to this sight not convert but just to let you walk in someone’s shoes that has been there and done what was asked the political leadership without committing war crimes. If I was ever given an order, or caught wind of an order to commit a war crime I would resign my commission, hand up my uniform and “get a real life” as Drfix told me to do. My original point to all this was that the Soldiers in the military are for the most part (99.9%) good people and can hang their heads high. If you think the reasons for the war are unjust ok, but the military is not prosecuting it in an unjust manner.

Ira7Epstein

The point here is that your sacrifices were made in wars that were unneeded and unjust. All the American soldiers who were maimed for life or killed did so in the cause of unjust and unneeded wars. The wars you fought in did nothing to make the American people safer or freer. The only causes your sacrifice advanced is the ambitions of some wicked politicians in Washington DC, and the fattening of the bottom line of companies like Halliburton and other members of the Military Industrial Complex. Your sacrifices were made for less than nothing. American soldiers were maimed for life or killed for less than nothing. The world has alot more widows and orphans and is a less peaceful place thanks to you and your service in Afghanistan and Iraq.

A story: neighbor A lives across the street from neighbor B. Neighbor B has a vicious dog that is not properly leashed and is allowed to roam freely. In a short time, neighbor B's dog attacks and bights neighbor A. At this point, neighbor A is justified in killing neighbor B's dog. After the attack, neighbor B’s dog runs off with neighbor A in hot pursuit. Neighbor A then does his damnedest to kill neighbor B’s dog. However, neighbor A is not satisfied that. He then loads up his AK47 assault rifle, walks across the street, invades neighbor B's home and guns neighbor B down in cold blood. Neighbor A is then arrested, given a fair and impartial trial, and is rightly convicted of the crime of murder by a jury of his peers. Substitute the United States for neighbor A, substitute Afghanistan for neighbor B and substitute Al-Qaeda for the dog. You now have a fair and accurate picture of what is taking place in Afghanistan. It is simply murder on a vast scale. Anyone who supports the war in Afghanistan should consider themselves to be an accomplice to the murder of an entire nation.

MAJ Steven Farrell

MAJ Steven Farrell, Student, Command and General Staff College, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth Kansas
Mr. Clemens, I believe my fellow colleague has raised a valid point of contention in regards to the overall mindset of many in the military. As stated, most Soldiers execute their duties with the utmost respect for what would be constituted as the morally right actions. It should not be considered that the actions of specific individuals are equaled to the tasks of the larger organization.
The views expressed in this comment are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Ira7Epstein

Good post! Governments should be held to the same moral standards as individuals, If murder is wrong then it does not become right if the government gives it a sanction in the name of the war on terror. The only problem I have with your post is at the end when you write the following:

"Anyone who supports the war in Afghanistan should consider himself to be an accomplice to the murder of an entire nation."

Nations are not murdered. Individuals are murdered. It should be always be remembered that Afghans are humans also. They may be alot poorer than us, but they have friends and family they love at least as much as any American loves their friends and family. They are not collateral humans.

I served two tours of duty in Iraq. Let me explain what will happen if the U.S. loses there….Al-Qa'ida will regain its foothold in Iraq and eventually gain enough support to overthrow the democratic government in Baghdad. With Iraq as a base of operations, the extremeists will have the resources to export their message and terrorists acts throughout the middle east. The governments of Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt are undermined and will eventually collapse-replaced by fundamental extremist regimes. The overthrow of these governments will revive the Islamic Caliphate, establishing Baghdad as its capital and threatens Israel. Potentially, the extremeists will use their vast oil wealth to procure and employ weapons of mass destruction. Attacks on the U.S. and Europe will increase.

The views expressed in this statement are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense or U.S. Government

Henry_Clemens

Whenever any nation wages an immoral, unjustifed and offensive war against another nation then the very act of waging such a war is a war crime in and ot itself. To try to argue that such an act is not a crime against the whole of humanity is to try to justify the unjustifiable and to defend the undefendable. Just ask the Nazis who were convicted at Nuremberg of the crime of waging immoral, unjustified and aggressive war. Anyone who plans or takes part in such a war is an accomplice to murder. But, in America, it is always the enlisted military grunts who get punished for "war crimes." The big shot civilian officials and military officers who plan and execute immoral wars of aggression literally get away with murder. That is until the day that they are judged by Almighty God at the Great White Throne Judgement. On that day, I would not be in their shoes for all the money and power the world has ever known.

Pat Beatty

I would like to express my sincere thanks to all the men and women in uniform who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. These are the true defenders of democracy, the ones who provide the blanket of security for this nation so that others may freely express their opinions, and generally live in security the way they want. Members of the Armed Forces don’t choose the place or the time to deploy in defense of the nation – they just write a blank check to the United States with their name on it. Some of those checks get cashed in small amounts– separation, hardship, or left-wing loathing and personal attacks from some members of society. Other checks are cashed for life and limb, and their families pay the price right along with them. My hat is off to those who serve – God Bless every one of them and their families for they do to keep this nation safe every day.

Pat Beatty

Our servicemembers lend so much more to this society than the simpleton ‘haters’ that prefer to co-sign their own BS on left-wing blog sites, finding it faddish to ‘bash’ the service members right along with their elected officials. Mr. Eland has the right to his opinions, but I find it very hard to understand why he feels the need to berate our young men who women serve. I may not like his position on things – but I won’t slander his family. You don’t agree with it – write your Congressman or President – don’t take it on the troops.

Pat Beatty

Regarding ‘peaceful_idiots’ comment: “Who says we need standing armies anyway?” and Mr. Elands’ comments “…war is sometimes necessary for defense – although the current U.S. offensive-defensive strategy is unneeded, unconstitutional, and counterproductive – but war rarely leads to increased freedom, as the founders knew. The civil liberties erosion under the "war on terror" is illustrative.” I think Mr. Eland needs to study history; The Founding Fathers decried war and found it unproductive? What? They waged war on the Federals and British to GAIN their freedoms. Please don’t confuse them with the Taliban. These are the folks that place more value on the lives of goats than on the lives of women and children. He’s obviously never had to look at the torn remains of men, women and children that were murdered by AQI or the Taliban in the name of a warped, radical ideology.

Pat Beatty

Mr. Eland & Mr. Clemens – do you see any reason to stop evil or shall we allow it to flourish? How about the 6 million Jews and others that were slaughtered prior to the end of WWII? Does the name Adolf Hitler mean anything to you? Do you really believe that America CAUSED 9-11 and that Americans need to feel guilty about the attacks on the United States? I suppose my grand-father CAUSED WWII by being born in America. Mr. Elands “…but war rarely leads to increased freedom” and causes an “erosion of civil liberties…”. The 6 Million disarmed and slaughtered Jews, Poles and others would probably agree with you if they were alive today. Hitler’s genocide sure did erode their civil liberties. The only reason Europe is free today, and there are any Jews left at all is because the US and her allies had standing armies. Soldiers – above all others – hate war. They’ve seen it firsthand. They’ve also seen evil, and have made the choice to fight it. Most would agree we’d rather fight evil overseas than on our own soil. America has largely been spared the ravages of war.

Pat Beatty

Something tells me that neither Peaceful_idiot nor Mr. Eland have never really seen the face of evil or the results of a car bomb in a crowded market. How did they ever get such a distorted picture of reality and a warped sense of good and evil? This is beyond my comprehension. Next time I see a Service member in the airport, I’ll thank them for their service.

Just for the record, I'm not a pacifist. Every nation has a right to defend itself from an immoral, unjust and aggressive attack by another nation. But the truth of the matter is this: Iraq and Afghansitan never attacked the United States. It was Al-Qaeda, a terrorist group, that attacked the U.S. To go after Al-Qaeda was, and is, justified. To attack Iraq and Afghanistan was immoral, unjustifed, aggressive and offensive. The hundreds of billions of dollars spent on those wars is bankrupting the American people. The U.S. does not have a God-given right to police the world and tell the rest of the people of the world how to live. Those are the indisputable facts. You may not like the truth but the truth cannot be disputed. Like I said, I may not be a pacifist, but given the choice between be a pacifist and a warmongerer, I would choose pacifisim any day of the week.

That is possibly a conspiracy theory just as or more ridiculous and absurd than anything I've heard come out of anyone I've seen post here, and that's pretty impressive. The 'fundamental extremists' are a vast minority, the only thing growing their numbers is our continual pissing off of Muslims by needlessly slaying their friends and families. If we can quit that, the extremists won't have anyone to turn.

mecormany

This really is delusional. This is a variation of the old domino theory from Viet Nam except crazier. Al Qaeda doesn't have the support to overthrow a local government let alone a country. The vast majority of Moslems do not seek any kind of war or domination of any country. These countries have next to no armies, only Iran has an air force to speak of so no matter who leads them and it will never be Qaeda, impying Israel with its 200 nuclear weapons would be threatened is a joke. Al Qaeda and most so called terrorist organizations who hate the US are fueled by our foreign policy since 1950– the United States voting with Israel on every major issue in the UN and especially by our military presence in the Mid East, our occupation forces in the MidEast and our interference with their politics since World War 2. Using the military as a major part of our foreign policy is why the extrremists hate us. They don't attack Cansda, Mexico, they attack us and the allies that defend our behavior the most strongly. The scenario you propose,with all due respect, is absurd.

mecormany

You mention evil – what is there in any of the events of the last ten years that is strictly evil? Comparing Qaeda with Hitler is a real stretch. No one has the right to attack civilians — including us although we seem to be the best at it – but do you honestly think extremists of any kind would continually accept the biggest nation on earth voting to keep Israel from ever having to answer for anything it's done to the Palestinians over the last 50 years — every single time, sir, and eventually not see the need to fight back, limited as it was. As to what constitutes evil today – you obviously have your opinion but I am very sure men just as intelligent as you are in other parts of the world have the opposite opinion of who the evildoers are in this situation. People defending their counry against a foreign invader do not fall under the description of evil in my book. As Mr. Powell said. "Americans always forget that other people tend to respond to violence and interference just like we would." How convenient the world is so black and white in your view.

mecormany

The face of evil. What's the difference in a car bomb in a crowded market or a barrage of bombs dropped from miles in the air, which can kill more and the pilot never has to even know how many children or women were scraming and terrified the last seconds of their lives. So you're saying hi-tech evil is war; low-tech evil is the real evil. Like there's a difference. Or is it just American-exceptionalism? It's war when we kill 300 at a shot, it's evil when they kill 30? Where's the good that's fighting evil come in seeing as you've set yourself up as the judge on such matters. Moslems don't count, Americans do? Only good Moslem is a dead Moslem? They're all on a jihad to kill as many of us as possible? We either fight them there or we fight them here? Ah, but you consider yourself an expert because you have seen such things. So perhaps you can tell us what the difference is between the dead from a car bomb and the dead from a bombing attack from the sky. Somebody is warped on this comment line but I wouldn't be worrying about it being me if I was Mr. Eland or Mr. Idiot.